Is it okay to vectorize this image to make a poster out of it even though the image is not Creative Commons or anything like that? I'm not using any part of the image directly and only going to use it as a guide to make my own SVG version.

3 Answers
3

Yes, a vectorized image generally counts as a derivative of the original, which means that distributing it without the original copyright holder's permission would be a copyright violation.

Of course, if you just want to make a nice poster to hand on your own wall, then you're probably safe — doing so might or might not be legal, depending on your local laws, but realistically, who's going to bother to sue you?

(Please note that I'm not trying to encourage you to break any laws, just stating a fact. You should find out whether your local laws permit this kind of copying for personal use, and make your own informed decision about whether it's wise to do so.)

If you intend to sell your poster, though, or even distribute it for free, I'd strongly advise against it — if for no other reason, then because the image you linked to looks very much like something that National Geographic might want to sell as a poster themselves. That might significantly increase their motivation to sue you if they find you stealing their potential profits.

I wasn't going to distribute it or profit from it, that would feel morally wrong, let alone being illegal. Those links look interesting though. I spent a while trying to find a poster version and didn't really get anywhere so that's awesome. I just need to find one selling it in the UK/Europe. Thank you!
–
DurandJan 16 '12 at 1:37

@Durand: The fineartamerica.com site seems to do international delivery, although you'll end up paying nearly as much for shipping as for the poster itself.
–
Ilmari KaronenJan 16 '12 at 14:19

Ah yeah, but then there's also customs to think about. Its good to know that option exists and I'm not desperate anyway!
–
DurandJan 16 '12 at 23:28

I haven't read about anyone being sued for vectorizing, but I have read about someone being sued for pixelating.

After seven months of legal wrangling, we reached a settlement. Last
September, I paid Maisel a sum of $32,500 and I'm unable to use the
artwork again.

Pixelating is removing detail whereas vectorizing would be adding detail (if you do it right). If removing detail is punishable in a court of law, it's likely that this case can be used as a precedent for ripping off someone and increasing the detail.

Thanks for the help, I had no idea that vectorizing was such a big deal before now!
–
DurandJan 16 '12 at 1:43

2

The actual point of law is whether or not your new work is a "derived work". A derived work is anything that uses the existing work as part of it, even if it is heavily modified, processed, transferred, composited, translated etc. So obviously both of these are examples of a derived work, as too was the Obama Hope poster. Making a derived work requires permission or license from the copyright holder just as copying and redistributing the original would.
–
thomasrutterOct 16 '12 at 0:46

The guy who created the Obama Hope poster was dinged for violating AP's copyright. While I'm not a lawyer, I'd say if it's for your personal use, you're probably not going to get sued, but if you put it out into the world in any capacity, and/or if you try to make money from it, you'll be in trouble.

I figured that distributing it would definitely be illegal so I was only going to use it to print it out myself and if someone specifically asks me about it. Thanks for the help!
–
DurandJan 16 '12 at 1:34